Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 1773 of 2024
.
Reserved on: 24.8.2023
Date of Decision: 16.9.2024.
Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram
r to ...Respondent
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Ms. Kanta Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was
arrested on 8.5.2024 for the commission of an offence
punishable under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) vide FIR
No. 74 of 2024, dated 3.5.2024, registered at Police Station
Sadar, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is in Judicial custody
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
for last two months. The police have filed the charge sheet
before the Court and the matter is listed for checking of copies
.
on 4.9.2024. The trial shall take a long time to conclude. No
fruitful purpose would be served by curtailing the liberty of the
petitioner. The Court had released the co-accused Raman Ravi
Verma on bail vide order dated 5.8.2024 in Cr.MP(M) No. 1579 of
2024. The other co-accused Himmat was released on bail by
learned Special Judge-II, District Solan, H.P. vide order dated
7.8.2024. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of
parity. The petitioner is a permanent resident of U.P. There is no
likelihood of his absconding. He shall abide by all the terms and
conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on
3.5.2024. When they reached near liquor vend, at 7.40 PM, HC
Dinesh Kumar received an information that a Taxi bearing
registration No. HP-01A-7109 was going from Dharampur to
Shimla, which was transporting heroin. The police reduced the
information into writing and associated one independent
person. The police stopped the vehicle bearing registration No.
HP-01A-7109. Three persons were found in the vehicle. The
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
driver revealed his name as Ravinder Kumar and another person
revealed his name, Raman Ravi Verma. Raman Ravi Verma had
.
kept a black backpack on his lap. One person was sitting in the
rear seat who revealed his name, Ravi Verma. The police
searched the backpack of Raman Ravi Verma and found 8.91
grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested
Raman Ravi Verma and Ravi Sharma. The police obtained the
petitioner’s account statement and that of Ravi Sharma and
found that they had transferred various amounts. Raman Ravi
Verma stated that the amount was transferred to Pradeep, the
present petitioner, who had sold the heroin to Raman Ravi
Verma previously also. Raman Ravi Verma had paid ₹10,000/- in
cash and transferred ₹20,000/- to the account of Himmat. The
police obtained the details of the mobile numbers and the
accounts. ₹20,000/- were transferred to the account of Himmat
on 3.5.2024. The police arrested Pradeep and Himmat. The
police also checked the mobile phone of Pradeep and Himmat
and found the conversation regarding the sale of the heroin. The
mobile phone was sent to FSL for analysis. The police also
obtained the recording of CCTV Footage. As per the report of
analysis, the
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
heroin was a sample of Diacetylmorphone whose actual weight
was 8.910 grams. The petitioner can indulge in the commission
.
of a similar offence in case of release on bail. FIR No. 175 of 2020
dated 23.10.2020, for the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act
in Police Station Sadar, Kharad, Punjab and FIR No. 12 of 2019
dated 20.2.2019, for the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 21 and 22 of ND&PS Act and Sections 353, 186,
332, 224, 149 and 511 in Police Station Baliawadi, District
Bhatinda, Punjab were registered against the petitioner. Hence,
the status report.
3. I have heard Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent-State.
4. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely
implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner except
the statement made by co-accused Raman Ravi Verma, which is
not a legally admissible piece of evidence. Therefore, she prayed
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be
released on bail.
.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was involved
in the commission of a similar offence in the past. He had
supplied heroin to the main accused earlier. He is a drug peddler
and releasing him on bail will adversely affect the young
generation of the society. Therefore, he prayed that the present
petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the
parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip
Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under: –
12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which
necessarily means that such discretion would have to be
exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual
facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may
vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive
parameters set out for considering the application for a
grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in
mind factors such as the nature of accusations,
severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
a conviction and the nature of evidence in support
of the accusations;
(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses
.
being tampered with or the apprehension of there
being a threat for the complainant should also
weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be
always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity of prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered in the
matter of grant of bail and in the event of there
being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to have an order of bail.
13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court
in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken
into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have
been explained in the following words:
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
very well settled. The court granting bail shouldexercise its discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of
granting bail a detailed examination of evidence
and elaborate documentation of the merit of the
case need not be undertaken, there is a need to
indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged with having
committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of
such reasons would suffer from non-application of
mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )to consider among other circumstances, the
following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity
.
of punishment in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering
with the witness or apprehension of threat to
the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in
support of the charge. (See Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC
598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas
r [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)”
8. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs
Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:
7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is
warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the
grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan ChandraSarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, therelevant principles were restated thus:
‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of
this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence;
.
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
r being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted
by grant of bail.’
9. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
there is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement
made by the co-accused. This is not correct. The police had
found money transactions between the main accused and
Himmat Singh, the co-accused. The police have also found the
Whatsapp chat related to supply of the heroin. The CCTV Footage
was also taken into possession. Thus, the prosecution is not only
relying upon the statement made by the co-accused implicating
the petitioner but has also collected other evidence to connect
the petitioner with the commission of the crime.
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
9
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
10. As per the status report, FIR No. 175 of 2020, dated
23.10.2020, for the commission of offences punishable under
.
Sections 379 & 411 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and FIR
No. 12 of 2019, dated 20.2.2019 for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of ND&PS Act and Sections
353, 186, 332, 224, 149 and 511 of IPC have been registered
against the petitioner. The petitioner has mentioned in para (g)
of his petition that he has criminal antecedents. Four cases have
been registered against him out of which two cases are
registered under the provisions of the ND&PS Act. Thus, the
petitioner has not disputed the facts recorded in the status
report regarding the pendency of the criminal cases against him.
It was held in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024:HHC: 6091 that while
granting bail, a Judge must consider whether the accused is a
first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if
so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct.
The bail should not be granted to a person having criminal
antecedents where there is likelihood of offence being repeated.
11. In the present case, the petitioner was found
involved in the commission of similar offences earlier and the
possibility of the petitioner committing a similar crime in case
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8553 )
of his release on bail cannot be ruled out. Hence, the petitioner
cannot be released on bail keeping in view his criminal
.
antecedents.
12. The status report shows that a lot of money was
transferred. The police found the details of the conversation
regarding the supply of heroin in the mobile phone of the
petitioner. These facts show that the petitioner is a drug peddler
and there is a force in the submission of Mr. Ajit Sharma,
learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State that
the possibility of the petitioner committing the crime in case of
release on bail cannot be ruled out. Hence, the petitioner cannot
be released on bail.
13. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
14. The observation made hereinabove shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
16th September, 2024
(Chander)
::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:05 :::CIS